| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Home Front: WoT | |||
| B.O. shuts down Guantanamo | |||
| 2009-01-23 | |||
| President Barack Obama yesterday signed three landmark executive orders mandating the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, shutting down all CIA prisons and banning the use of torture. The orders signaled a sharp reversal of the controversial Bush administration "war on terror" policies launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Signing the Guantanamo order which also halted any further military hearings of the inmates, Obama said he was setting in place a process by which the camp "will be closed no later than one year from now."
"The order sets up an immediate review to determine whether it is possible to transfer detainees to third countries, consistent with national security," a White House summary said. "If transfer is not approved, a second review will determine whether prosecution is possible and in what forum." If any of the remaining inmates, about 245 according to the Pentagon, cannot be transferred or prosecuted, then the review coordinated by the attorney general and the defense secretary will look at lawful ways of dealing with them.
And Obama commanded that all US agencies were to provide access to detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross. In prohibiting torture, Obama ruled that no advice on interrogations issued between September 11, 2001 and Tuesday's inauguration by the Department of Justice or any other legal body remained relevant. A new task force will also be set up to examine the details of the interrogation guidelines set out in the Army Field Manual to decide whether new rules need to be issued for the CIA. | |||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #41 Crazy Fool and others are correct. Pan, I don't think you are. We HAVE BEEN applying the conventions and the law of armed conflict, which are unambiguous on the relevant issues here. The gap is in terms of what to do with the detainees after capture. It's safe to say the process we've developed (in any of its versions, including the original one) is fully adequate, and is "consistent with our values" to use the narcissistic formulation with slanderous implications used by that nitwit man-child now in the WH. US legal chauvinists and "human rights activists" have nothing but their fairly parochial and ignorant certitude to back up demands for all the trappings of US criminal procedure. The military commissions model adopts many of the aspects of the civil or Napoleonic code courts used by 80% of the world for their criminal trials. It is fully consistent with our values - but one needs an effective IQ above 70 to recognize that. Yes, the previous administration could have convened another session to amend Geneva (that's what has been done in the past to update the accords framework for new or unanticipated issues). The goal would have been to make use of some sort of military commission the preferred process for detainees. The situation remains that the Bush admin. (as in so many other areas) made the right decisions and then utterly refused to explain, advocate, defend, or rebut when the baseless slanders and distortions ensued. This was a strategic catastrophe WRT public affairs and propaganda. The new crew, consistent with past behavior, makes stupid decisions (or deceptive feints at decisions) while piling on more slander and distortion of the Bush actions. As I said, nauseating. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-01-23 22:51 |
| #40 PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > IS STATE CAPITALISM THE ANSWER IN TIMES OF [US-World] ECONOMIC CRISIS? And lo the Angel opened up the Great Seal, and PEACE AND SOCIALISM-GOVTISM REIGNED ON THE LAND. NO? * AL BUNDY > "...UNTIL EVIL = PEG BUNDY SPREAD HER BIG RED HAIR ON THE LAND"??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-01-23 22:07 |
| #39 PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM/TOPIX > OBAMA SHUTS DOWN GUANTANAMO: US SUDDENLY ENDS BUSH WAR ON TERROR? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-01-23 22:02 |
| #38 Moose: wrong. Sorry. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-01-23 21:25 |
| #37 We're all basically on the same page. I have a lot of respect for W but this is another one where he should've a) basically said what three of us said about the GC on this thread or b) told the world and the country's lefties to f*ck off about gitmo. or C) * my choice. summarilly executed some of these dogs and pulled out the GC paper work to back up the action as in the best interest of iraqi & afghani civilians. (not to mention those of us that wear a uniform). |
| Posted by: Bob Cheaper aka Broadhead6 2009-01-23 20:40 |
| #36 "Looks like 0('s)" I was thinking more along the lines of something involving an 8 and a 4, Spike. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-23 20:10 |
| #35 When we catch a terrorist we say he's not wearing a uniform and we can shoot him and not safeguard to the rear, etc... That rule was designed for spies. No. It was designed for civilians. If your enemy is in uniform, they you should only fire at people in uniforms. If the enemy stops wearing uniforms then how can you tell who is a civilian and who is a combatant? So any combatant who does not wear a uniform is putting the lives of civilians unnecessarily at risk and is a war criminal and subject to summary execution. The laws of war are fine. They should be enforced and obeyed. We obey them but fail to enforce them. That is a mistake. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-01-23 19:17 |
| #34 Its my understanding that the GC was designed to protect civilians by defining certain rules of war: * Combatants are clearly identified as such (by a uniform, obvious badge, etc...) * Combatants do *not* hide in the civilian populations (in schools, hospitals, churches/mosques) nor use them for military purposes * Combatants do *not* intentionally target civilians Sides were given an incentive to follow the rules - their POW's would be treated with respect. They have certain protections (against summary execution in the field for example) And most important those who *break* the conventions do *not* receive the protections. By extending the protections to those who do not deserve them (i.e. the Terrorists) we _weaken_ the GC because now China (or Russia) have no incentive to follow it - after all their will get the protections no matter what. Of course I am not a lawyer, never played one on TV and didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night. So anyone correct me if I'm wrong. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-01-23 18:56 |
| #33 SM and Andy, Your correct and I neglected to include sabateurs and should have. I also agree that "WE" must set the precedent and force the world to agree to it. We have to drive it to protect our service members and govermnent agencies from charges stemming from their actions in combat. Interesting point on the Geneva accord being designed for Civs. Too many years of being a soldier and looking at it from the other perspective, point well taken. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-01-23 18:35 |
| #32 Pan, I have an issue: When we catch a terrorist we say he's not wearing a uniform and we can shoot him and not safeguard to the rear, etc... That rule was designed for spies. i'd say it was designed for sabateurs as well as for spies, but that wouldn't strictly be right either. The Geneva Convention wasn't designed _for_ soldiers. It was designed _for_ civilians. It merely has incentives for soldiers who fight in such a way as to help insure that the civilian populace in general doesn't become a target. of course, many of these terrorists target civilians in the first place. Funny, if they targeted New York, people would get mad. If they target a mosque in Karbala and blow up thirty people, the average American thinks it proves we have no business there and need to abandon the country to the guys who blew up the Mosque. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-01-23 18:06 |
| #31 Disagree. FDR executed 6 German Sabateurs during WWII. Not spies, but those who had intentions & the means of killing civilians and infrastructure and the intent to do so. I.E. - enemy combatants not in uniform. If there is not a precedent for this type of thing, then we set one on our terms - not the world's. |
| Posted by: Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2009-01-23 17:19 |
| #30 I agree 49pan. But Bambi I don't think has the political balls to say as such. Almost no politician does and expects to be re-elected. The sad thing is, most of the western population simply doesn't get it. They think somehow it is the west's fault, or poverty, or Israel, or anything else. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-01-23 16:49 |
| #29 Ok, I have tried to stay out, but here comes the rant and IÂ’m wearing body armor for the return volley. The facts as I see it after reading all the reports are there are about 20 high value prisoners there. These are the oneÂ’s we want to send to the gallows. The others are questionable or low level guys. I recommend we leak out that they traded their freedom for information and we let them go or we keep them and treat them as POWs. The High value guys we keep and hang. Just as we would any war criminals. But as far as Obama goes: I think we as a nation need to step back a step and rethink this war. I believe we should prosecute this war and the detainees under the Geneva convention laws at the Hague. The rub is that there are no internationally agreed on laws of war for this type of battle. I do believe Obama got it half right, not by design or any great thought, but by accident. And believe me, it chokes to say it. With that, the world must reclassify the conventions of how wars are fought and the classification of combatants when it comes to soldiers fighting for an ideology and not a nation state. For example we classify the prisoners as detainees, not soldiers, not PWs. We use rules that should not apply with processes that are nonexistent, we are literally making it up as we go. Our rules call for uniforms, patches, and nation states to lead them. When we catch a terrorist we say heÂ’s not wearing a uniform and we can shoot him and not safeguard to the rear, etcÂ… That rule was designed for spies. The terrorists at Gitmo are not spies, they are soldiers, not for a nation but for an ideology. A misguided ideology that calls for the death of all nonbelievers. They are truly our enemy and deserve the wrath of AmericaÂ’s anger, so donÂ’t think IÂ’m going soft here. At the onset of the war making it up as we go was fine, now the world need to get up off itÂ’s collective ass and get this right. We have no conventions to deal with combatants not tied to a nation state. We have no conventions for dealing with nations that sponsor or provide sanctuary. When an act of war occurs in London, a bombing, we treat it as a crime. Treating it as an act of war, not an internal crime but a war crime, would allow us more freedom in combating them. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-01-23 16:44 |
| #28 Rush nails it Greg Craig, Our 44th President BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Now, here's audio sound bites. This is Obama. He has to ask Greg Craig, the White House counsel, for help here, signing the closing of Gitmo executive order. OBAMA: (chiseling in marble sound effect) In order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo, uh, and promptly to close the detention facility at Guantanamo consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and interests of justice, I hereby order. And we then we will then, uh, provide the process whereby Guantanamo will be closed no later than, uh, one year from now. We will be... Uhhh.... Ummm.... Is there a separate executive order, Greg, with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees? Is that it, eh, uh, what we're doing? CRAIG: We'll set up a process! OBAMA: We will be, uh, setting up a process whereby this is going to be taking place. RUSH: By the way, we are etching his words. We're chiseling his words in marble, since that's how CNN has portrayed the articulate pronouncements of President Obama. "By the way, Greg, what are we doing here? Separate executive order with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees. Is that what we're doing?" "We will set up a process! We'll set up a process. I'm sorry. I've also been asked not to be so critical 'til Obama really messes up. I know he just messed up, but I don't think some of the dingleberries in this country quite understand how he screwed up yet, and if I didn't tell 'em, they won't know. We're going to set up a process? Can I translate that? How would you translate that, "We're going to set up a process for dealing with the people that are there now"? (interruption) That's exactly right: We don't have a clue what we're doing. This is the "we don't have a clue" executive order. We don't have a plan. We don't have a plan. We're going to take care of the plan during the next year. Political. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Here's one more audio sound bite from Obama. Now, this is just this morning at the White House in the Oval Orifice, and Obama here is on the task force that they're gonna use process to create to deal with the detainees that are going to end up being released from Guantanamo Bay. And once again, Greg Craig, the White House counsel, has to explain it to Obama in the midst of Obama's announcement here. Greg Craig, as you know, sometimes we don't know who he works for. Sometimes it's the American government; sometimes it's the Cuban government. I mean, he did represent the father (this means Castro) of the young Elian Gonzalez, who Janet Reno eventually saw to it was dispatched back to the slums and the authoritarian tyranny of Cuba. Here is Obama announcing what they're going to do with the detainees. OBAMA: (chiseling in marble sound effect) What we're doing here is to set up a special interagency task force on detainee disposition. They are going to provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal in the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently in Guantanamo that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States, uh, but, uh, we cannot try because of various problems related to evidence, uh, in a Article 3 court. So this task force is going to provide us with, uh, a series of recommendations on, uh, that. Is that correct, Greg? CRAIG: That's right. And detainee policy going forward. OBAMA: And detainee policy going forward so that we don't find ourselves in these kinds of situations, uh, in the future. CRAIG: And there is clear guidance for the military as well. OBAMA: And that we are providing clear guidance to our military in terms of having to do with it. RUSH: Unbelievable here! What am I supposed to do? Am I supposed to marvel at this? Am I supposed to sit here and marvel at how this new teamwork is taking place, about how the president is incorporating all these people? It sounds to me like... You know, folks, this is not much evidence to go on, but I'm sure we could find the audio sound bites of me in the past saying, "You know, there's a part of me when I said I was conflicted about Obama, I'm not sure what's going on. Does he just want to be president with everybody else doing all the work and he gets to just be the figurehead and play the big games?" I don't recall. Honestly, I don't recall. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. But somebody help me out here. Have we ever seen a president announce an executive order and have to turn to his counsel to explain what the hell the executive order is? 'Cause it's his order! He's the president. It's his executive order, but then is it his executive order? "Is that correct, Greg? This task force is going to provide us with a series of recommendations? Is that correct, Greg?" "And detainee policy going forward," and then Obama repeats it, "and detainee policy going forward so that we don't find ourselves in these kinds of situations in the future." Then Craig interrupts without even being asked, "and there is clear guidance for the military as well." And Obama says, "and we're providing clear guidance for our military in terms of how to deal with this." What am I supposed to do? They shoulda just put it on the prompter. They absolutely shoulda just put it on the teleprompter, but then the press would report there was a teleprompter. It's his executive order. And with Greg Craig in there... Remember, Greg Craig also as he needed as Bill Clinton's lead attorney during the impeachment proceedings. That was after he represented Castro and the father of Elian Gonzalez. Oh, this is... You know, I so want my president to do the right thing and for our country to succeed. This is not inspiring confidence. Is it? (interruption) What do you mean, "he hasn't found his voice yet"? He hasn't found his voice? This is the most articulate president we have ever elected? I know that's what they said about Clinton when he screwed up in the first two years, "He's still looking for his voice, still searching." All right. I don't want to make too big a deal out of it. I just don't recall a lawyer being in there, interrupting and being asked for guidance on what the president's executive order. All I can tell you, folks, is none of this that you heard has the slightest thing to do with United States security. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: You know how I know it never happened that Bush had to turn to Cheney or somebody and have the executive order he was signing explained to him? You know how I know that? Because if it had happened we would still be watching video of it today, because the whole template on Bush was that he's stupid, that he's a blockhead, that he's an idiot, and we would have seen that replayed over and over again. We would have had stories, "Does Bush even run the administration?" 'Cause they thought Cheney was running it all along anyway. So now here's Obama, apparently not fully up to speed on what's happening with his own executive orders. He has to turn to Greg Craig, who once was a lawyer for Fidel Castro and Elian Gonzalez's dad in Cuba. Have you people seen the movie Blazing Saddles? Some of you youngsters out there may not have seen Blazing Saddles, it's one of the funniest movies ever, it's by Mel Brooks. You should go out there -- I know some of you tightwads don't buy movies -- go out there and rent it. Mel Brooks plays a bunch of characters, and one of the characters he plays is Governor Le Petomane, and he's an absolute idiot. He's a figurehead. All he cares about is the showgirl in the back room and having some time with her after he finishes the so-called official duties. Harvey Korman plays Hedley Lamarr, the chief of staff who's constantly throwing official papers in front of Governor Le Petomane to sign. He signs it, heads back to the showgirl. And, in fact, the movie -- well, never mind. I'm not going to say more about it, but that's what I thought I was watching. It's his executive order. I still can't get over this. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I want to go back and replay an audio sound bite. This is this morning in Washington, the Oval Office, President Obama signing an executive order calling for the closure of Club Gitmo within one year. Now, we will not have the chisel sounds. We've already chiseled this bite in marble, so you will not hear them here. OBAMA: In order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo, uh, and promptly to close the detention facility at Guantanamo consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and interests of justice, I hereby order. And we then we will then, uh, the process whereby Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now. We will be... Uhhh.... Umm.... Is there a separate executive order, Greg, with respect to how we're going to dispose of the detainees? Is that it, eh, uh, what we're doing? CRAIG: We'll set up a process! OBAMA: We will be setting up a process, uh, whereby this is going to be taking place. RUSH: Greg, is there going to be another executive order? What are you guys doing back there, did you write another executive order, or is this it? That's Greg Craig, the White House counsel who represented the father of Elian Gonzalez and Fidel Castro of Cuba. Also represented Bill Clinton in the impeachment hearings. I didn't play this to once again highlight Obama not knowing what's going on with his own executive order. What I did was to illustrate it's not very FDR-like, and I wanted to make mention of this for those in the Obama administration monitoring this program. What you did today, purely political, not oriented toward the security of this country. Do you people in New York feel safer now? I mean you may like your country a little more, but do you feel safer here? We're going to close a prison for terrorists in the interests of national security and justice? (laughing) And the foreign policy interests of the United States. Anyway, FDR would not do this. Remember, FDR put Japanese citizens in the internment camps! He did what he had to do in time of war to protect this country. This is not FDR-like. And I had to make that observation. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Apparently, ladies and gentlemen, I was not the only one to notice that Obama's executive orders that he signed today seemed to be executive orders he hadn't seen yet. He's asking Greg Craig, (paraphrasing) "What are we doing here, Greg?" Greg Craig says, "Here's what we're doing," and Obama repeats it as though it's his own words. This afternoon on Fox News Channel Jon Scott talked to Democrat strategist Bob Beckel about Obama's signing of the executive orders today and the confusion with the media. Now, I don't know what confusion with the media there was, because I wasn't there, but here's the question that Jon Scott asked: "If you were running the media show at the White House, would you call somebody on the carpet? I mean you want the president to look presidential, right?" BECKEL: Yeah, I suspect that this is gonna lead to a discussion here with a few people. Look, for people who pulled off -- just think about what they pulled off at the Democratic National Convention, I mean these are pros, and they're gonna -- they can't make little mistakes, 'cause we're going to talk about it. So I suspect that there's going to be a few heads that are going to roll and I also suspect you're not going to see many missteps after this. RUSH: I'm not sure what he's talking about here. I don't know what the misstep with the media was, unless it is Obama not knowing what his executive orders said. But maybe media there was a media screw-up in there, maybe people didn't get in there, I have no clue what this is about. I hope to find out. It was a media issue yesterday. This says it's about the executive order. (interruption) Well, I know about that, the controversy yesterday was the White House released photos of the finger and Rahm Emanuel in the Oval Office, and the Drive-Bys are upset, they didn't run the picture because they want their own photographers in there and they weren't allowed in their to take their own. They had to run the White House picture. Of course the Drive-Bys, occasionally they'll stand up for themselves, even when it's Obama, "We're not going to run your propaganda. We didn't take the picture. It's a White House picture. We want our own picture. We run the propaganda around here. We want our cameras in there to record the propaganda." Well, he cut his finger off, didn't he, or do something? He cut his little finger off to show toughness or something. He cut it and didn't get it looked at and it was getting ugly looking out there, had to go chop it off, in a show of great toughness. Yeah, like the Yakuza guys, like the Japanese Mafia. Exactly, Snerdley, exactly. So I don't think Beckel here is talking about -- I think we still are the only ones talking about the fact that Obama had no idea what executive orders he was signing and what they said. BREAK TRANSCRIPT |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2009-01-23 15:49 |
| #27 i'm glad you said that tipper |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2009-01-23 13:49 |
| #26 "with the goal of disposing of the detainees What ever became of Saddam's industrial shredders? |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-01-23 13:12 |
| #25 Can't see what the problem is. If I were a Muslim, I would close Guantanamo down as my first act of the presidency. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-01-23 12:40 |
| #24 I don't believe a word of it. The fun will start when we talk about returning these psychopaths to their country of origin. Then 2 things will happen: The "civilized counties" will complain that they don't want em back. Prisoners from Muslim counties will complain they'll be tortured if they're returned. The result will be that we'll still be stuck with them. Probably in Guantanamo. However Barak will be able to say "Hey, we tried." |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2009-01-23 11:57 |
| #23 O.P. Unfortunately I think it may turn out to be one long drawn out redefintion of the constitution and its interpretation. We already have congresscritters acting as they are empowered to negotiate with foreign powers (Queen Nancy) and getting away with it. As for the detainees - I say release them..... in the middle of the Atlantic. And Obama commanded that all US agencies were to provide access to detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross. ICRC - A known terrorist supporting organization. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-01-23 11:38 |
| #22 In prohibiting torture, Obama ruled that no advice on interrogations issued between September 11, 2001 and Tuesday's inauguration by the Department of Justice or any other legal body remained relevant. A new task force will also be set up to examine the details of the interrogation guidelines set out in the Army Field Manual to decide whether new rules need to be issued for the CIA. BO's stepping on Congress' toes here. The Constitution is very clear - CONGRESS defines the rules and regulations that govern the Armed Forces, not the President. I truly believe the Obama presidency is going to be one long, drawn-out lesson on the Constitution of the United States. This spate of early executive orders, and their foolishness, is strike one against the Obama presidency. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-01-23 11:19 |
| #21 I think Gitmo has outlived its usefulness. If there is another, secret site set up to interrogate prisoners... great. If Bambi brings them into the US court system... we are fucked. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-01-23 11:02 |
| #20 Read US Air Force Veteran Kit Lange's "My Predictions on The New Obama Presidency." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-01-23 10:57 |
| #19 i think all those 3rd party countries have made it pretty clear too that they don't want them back or at all |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2009-01-23 10:50 |
| #18 have they voted him greatest president ever yet? |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2009-01-23 10:50 |
| #17 "with the goal of disposing of the detainees I can see a contract for Haliburton Waste Disposal Services in the future. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-01-23 10:41 |
| #16 Hasn't Murtha offered to take them in his district. If I had to live in Johnstown or Uniontown I would probably give up OBL's heroin stash just to be considered for rendition to Somalia. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2009-01-23 10:29 |
| #15 Gitmo was chosen because technically its not US territory. SCOTUS Justice Kennedy decided that the US Constitution applies across all other sovereignties which eliminates the rationale for Gitmo [but as with so many things in life, opens up a whole new can of worms which SCOTUS will have to create an entire new wing in law libraries to address the consequences of]. This is in addition to the new stack in the libraries that will have to address the issues about how the Geneva Convention must comply with civil legal concepts of due process, never here to fore thought applicable by any of the drafters or signers of said Convention. Remember there are no principles in law, only more case law to be created to fill an ever expanding gray area of exception. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-01-23 10:10 |
| #14 Had a heated discussion with a lib-colleague and I asked him to show me any country in the history of the world that has put on trial those who were captured on the battle field.....dead silence. |
| Posted by: Hammerhead 2009-01-23 09:47 |
| #13 Moose, I'd like to think you're right. I'd like to think the detainees have been wrung dry of useful intel over the years. Problem is, we still need somewhere to park them, and I really don't want them on US soil. Gitmo was great for this. Sure, we can park them in an Iraqi or Afghani prison but it isn't as good a solution. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-01-23 09:39 |
| #12 FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-01-23 09:21 |
| #11 I don't think this matters, for several reasons. 1) Gitmo was a "Potemkin village", designed to attract attention away from other field prisons. It worked great in that capacity. Most of its high value detainees had already been drained of useful information and are destined for Florence, Colorado (The ADX). The rest are just window dressing, and can be let go. 2) The other CIA field prisons have likely finished their job, and their detainees are either dead or given over to countries that will have no problem disposing of them. Closing them own just means they can be sterilized and have the buildings demolished. 3) I'm still convinced that waterboarding was just a tactical ploy, used because it was a cheap and quick way to get tactical information within 48 hours of capture. Philippine Insurrection technology, literally. 4) Anyone held longer than that would be given drugs, to give us long and detailed information. Twilight anesthetics make most people so chatty about secret stuff that doctors get embarrassed by them. Hardly what I would call torture, though. I'm actually ticked off that the CIA didn't set up any mass drug induced brainwashing facilities to reprogram Jihadis to kill other Jihadis. They could have busted up this whole al-Qaeda crap in record time by doing that. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-01-23 09:19 |
| #10 Attention all Jarheads and Grunts: Take no more prisoners. but don't say it out loud. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2009-01-23 09:00 |
| #9 B.O. is so enlightened that he has empathy for 'our' enemies but has no problems with supporting Partial Birth Abortion. So far his batting average as President is .000 |
| Posted by: airandee 2009-01-23 07:59 |
| #8 Lovely to see taking care of his GITMO detainee colleagues was literally the first action undertaken by B.O. No further questions regarding presidential priorities your honor. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-01-23 06:48 |
| #7 Way to shred the Geneva Conventions, dipshit. mhw has it exactly right. I could bitch-slap this man-child for his reckless naivete, and tongue-lash his predecessor for his refusal to confront the b.s. and call the bluff of the ICRC and Geneva signatories by calling for a new convention. And remember - the only people pointing out the obvious effing truth about this issue are on these unread comment boards. Congress? Not a peep. Academia? Right. The meticulously negotiated and constructed Geneva framework is trashed by its guardians (ICRC) and the children temporarily in charge of the US, and no adults even bother to speak up. Nauseating. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-01-23 03:04 |
| #6 We'll be fine. Move the Guantanamites to Malibu or Marin. Let them dine on Lefties for a little while. The lefties will get mad and declare unholy war on them and likely commit the genocide they've been whining about for 7 years. Only the lefties can pull it off - they're much more vicious than those of us on the right. |
| Posted by: Rob06 2009-01-23 02:23 |
| #5 This is typical liberal leftist delusional thinking. These gitmo jihadis are psychopaths, brought up from an early age to hate everything about western civilization. You can be as kind, thoughtful, and caring to them, but to their eyes, you are an infidel, and you should be killed or subjugated. I am afraid that we will be ruled again by pre 9-11 mindsets, who will expose us to terrorist attacks again. This time, with more loss of life. Or we will be steadily be softened up and infiltrated, and destroyed from within, like the wasp who lays an egg inside the body of its victim, where it larva devours the paralyzed host. I hate to be morbid, but that is the way I see it. |
| Posted by: Al-Aska Paul, Resident Imam 2009-01-23 01:50 |
| #4 What year is it again? Looks like 0('s), Barb. Fasten your seat belts! |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2009-01-23 01:18 |
| #3 "Per Obama, you now have more rights if you violate the laws of war than you do if you do obey the laws of war." War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength. You need to get with the program, mhw. What year is it again? |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-23 00:46 |
| #2 Per Obama, you now have more rights if you violate the laws of war (don't wear uniforms, don't carry weapons openly and intentionally put civilian lives at risk) than you do if you do obey the laws of war. Damm. |
| Posted by: mhw 2009-01-23 00:24 |
| #1 "B.O. There - fixed. No charge. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-01-23 00:11 |